by J S Hollis
“i had a dream a few nights ago,” S said.
“a nightmare?”
“you tell me. i was watching your bare feet walking along a pavement on my eyescreens. a crowd chanted ‘hope’. you climbed a step and turned around. then i could see all of you. dressed simply in trousers and shirt. you were outside a black door with a gold number ten on it. you smiled but not too enthusiastically. you spoke. you told those gathered how humans have been and always will be social animals. that the time of individualism is over and that we must make sacrifices for the good of the many. that it was time to say enough is enough. the crowd whooped and you waved. your teeth merged into a single streak of white. and then i flicked you away to watch a family squabble about whether or not it was right for a young boy to share a bath with his young sister.”
“a nice dream.”
“yes, and then it became clear to me.”
“youre talkative today.”
“it is the only way it makes any sense. you killed mum so that one day you could become prime minister.”
“dont be ridiculous, seb.”
“only you could rationalise her death by your belief in some greater good.” S looked towards the ceiling. “the good you would do when in power.”
cecils face twisted into a frown. “as if i would imagine anyone would elect a murderer.”
“look at the figures. you are the most popular man in england right now.”
“im just a man speaking in a room.”
S used his nail to scratch an S into the table.
“dont to that,” cecil said, trying to push Ss hand away.
“there was an element of gamble, i give you that. but it was calculated. it was only worth doing once you had lost your job and you saw the way the government was going. better to kill mum than allow the country to be subjected to thought tracking.”
“i dont care that much about thought tracking.”
“you even got me to help you discredit thought tracking. i have to hand it to you.”
“sebastian, you are making me out to be some sort of evil genius.”
S turned to look at cecils face. “that is exactly what you are. you think you are better than the rest of us because you are consistent, because you have reasons.”
“are you saying you want me to be a hypocrite?”
“im saying i want you to be human.”
S got up and left the stool where it was.
This Transcript has not been proofread or corrected. It is a working tool for the Ombudsman for use in preparing his decision. It will be placed on the Ombudsman’s site for readers to see how matters were conducted at the public hearing of these proceedings and is not to be relied on or cited in the context of any other proceedings. The Ombudsman’s decision in this matter will be the final and definitive record.
Case No: 62SO20630003
Smith House
65 Fleet Street
London
EC4Y 1HS
25 June 2064
BEFORE
Ombudsman Terence Smye
REGARDING
Sebastian Stanhope’s application to be removed from the International Democratic Surveillance System
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
OMBUDSMAN: Good morning. My name is Terence Smye and I am the Democratic Surveillance Ombudsman. You are Mr Stanhope?
MR STANHOPE: I am.
OMBUDSMAN: Thank you. You have applied to be withdrawn from the International Democratic Surveillance System, which I will refer to from now on by its acronym, IDSS, although I note it is also colloquially referred to as W. Is this correct?
MR STANHOPE: Yes, Mr Ombudsman.
OMBUDSMAN: Thank you Mr Stanhope. I understand that you are representing yourself today. Can you confirm that is correct?
MR STANHOPE: Yes, Mr Ombudsman.
OMBUDSMAN: Very well, Mr Stanhope. Given that you are unrepresented, allow me to remind you of the law in this area, which is set out in statute, namely, the IDSS Act 2028, as amended, which implements into the law of England, the International Treaty on the Application of the IDSS, also known as the Addis Ababa Treaty.
Section 1 of the Act states that “Subject to the exceptions in section 3, all individuals and places will be viewable, audible and recordable at all times through the IDSS.”
Section 2 of the Act states that “Subject to the exceptions in section 4, an individual is free to view and listen to all data held by the IDSS.”
Given that you are applying to be excluded from the IDSS, the critical question for us today relates to section 3 of the Act, which allows an individual to be excluded from the IDSS provided that the “individual has good reason to be excluded and such exclusion is, on balance, proportionate with the aims of a democratic society. For the benefit of any doubt, a good reason cannot be for national security or to protect against personal embarrassment.”
As you may know, Mr Stanhope, all courts, national and international, have construed this section narrowly. There have been only two cases in England to which the section 3 exclusion has been applied and upheld by the International Court for the Implementation of the IDSS, the ICII.
I believe the reasoning in those two cases are informative and therefore, if you agree, I will briefly set them out.
MR STANHOPE: [Nods]
OMBUDSMAN: In Rachmanov vs. The Democratic Surveillance Ombudsperson,38 the wife of Mr Rachmanov applied for the exclusion of her husband from the IDSS on his behalf on the basis that his presence on the IDSS was specifically linked to the increasing severity of his paranoid schizophrenia. Mr Rachmanov, a talented engineer by all accounts, had been engaging in increasingly dangerous attempts to “hide himself”. These included designing a body suit of high UV lights, which the Court understood he hoped would “blind” the nanocameras used to capture footage for the IDSS. The suit sadly left Mr Rachmanov and a small number of others with severe burns. On another occasion, he was taken to hospital while constructing a “doppelgänger” room of mirrors and screens, which he hoped would confuse the viewer as to who was the real Mr Rachmanov.
The Court agreed that reducing Mr Rachmanov’s suffering was sufficiently good reason to have him removed from the IDSS, provided it could be shown that his suffering was triggered by the IDSS.
Abundant medical evidence, including trial periods during which Mr Rachmanov was disengaged from the IDSS, proved that Mr Rachmanov’s paranoid schizophrenia was severely increased by his presence on the IDSS. The Court was also convinced that releasing Mr Rachmanov from the IDSS did not create a threat to democratic society, as he was in any case detained in a high security hospital for the mentally unwell.
Perhaps less relevant to your case, Mr Stanhope, is the case of Wellington vs. The Democratic Surveillance Ombudsperson.39 In that case, Miss Wellington, a ninety-three year old nun, applied to be excluded on the basis that she wanted to die in private. In her eloquent testimony, she argued that she feared the sanctity of her death would be undermined by her presence on the IDSS. The Court confirmed that a desire for privacy can constitute a good reason for exclusion from the IDSS but that in the majority of cases an exclusion on those grounds is not proportionate with the aims of democratic society. In Wellington, however, the Court found that the exclusion was proportionate on the balance of the evidence.
In her leading judgment, Lady Justice Mansfield said: “There is no doubt that the IDSS has done much to make our society fairer, more transparent and safer following a period of great conflict and pain. While the Courts have a duty to uphold the age old right to privacy, it has long been recognised that this right is not absolute. Such a right must be balanced against the rights of others to security, freedom and justice. In general, when a person seeks privacy, there is reasonable suspicion regarding that person’s motives and so the concern for society outweighs the concern for the indivi
dual’s right. In this case, I have no such suspicion. Miss Wellington has lived her ninety-three years as a lodestar of morality and kindness. A review of the period of her life available on the IDSS has found no evidence of any ill meaning attitudes or maliciousness. This woman is nothing less than a saint and there is no reason to doubt her sincerity that she does indeed wish to die privately with only God himself by her side.”
Miss Wellington’s removal from the IDSS was still severely limited. Only when Miss Wellington’s vital signs indicated, in the opinion of medical professionals, that death would occur within hours was the IDSS required to cut her out.
Even this limited application has been subject to criticism over the last decade. Many legal scholars feared it would open the floodgates so that the IDSS would be disapplied regularly from the dying. Such fears have not been realised. Applications similar to Miss Wellington’s have been distinguished on the facts. Very few individuals have lived as saintly and God fearing lives as Miss Wellington. The conclusion is that, in general, a person will only be removed from the IDSS if that person is suffering from severe mental illness caused by the IDSS.
On that note, we turn to your application, Mr Stanhope. We have it in writing here but you may wish to add some words.
MR STANHOPE: Thank you, Mr Ombudsman. Please accept my apologies if I am unclear. I am not accustomed to public speaking.
I want to tell you about a memory. It was 21 February 2044, a grey day. My mother was on the lounge carpet rubbing her temples while vying for my attention by throwing the bone of our Spanish speaking dogbot. She was having little success. The sky and the repeated requests from the dog to “Ven a jugar conmigo” took their toll. Mum got up to get some painkillers. Before she left, she took a bouncy ball from my hand and in exchange gave me a small square of dark chocolate from a regular sized bar. She left the bar on the windowsill. As soon as she left the room, I took the dog’s bone and knocked the pack of chocolate down. I knew time was scarce so rather than unwrap the bar, I shoved it straight into my mouth.
As it entered, I heard my mother shout from upstairs, “Seb, put that chocolate down.” I stood there astonished with the bar wedged between my teeth, unchewed but slowly melting in my mouth. How had she known?
OMBUDSMAN: Mr Stanhope, I am sorry to interrupt, but where are you going with this tale? It would be appreciated if you could stick to the point.
MR STANHOPE: Forgive me, Mr Ombudsman. The point is that I am becoming mentally unwell. It is hard to prove because I am not mentally unwell yet. I just know it is coming. Recently I had a very strong desire to kill my father. You might say, and many people have said, that this is genetics, shock or a reaction to my father’s crime. You might be right. But I don’t think so. I think it is because of W. W is unnatural. As demonstrated by my story, a child expects to be observed when with other people but expects to be alone when no one else is present. W’s omnipresence is disturbing, and unless I am removed from W I pose a risk to myself and to others.
Undoubtedly, you will say that although the psychologists agree that my mental state is unstable, they disagree on the cause. I agree. We can’t be convinced that it is W that is making me ill. But we would have a better idea if W wasn’t a constant in my life.
I was born on 19 September 2042, and by that time W had been in partial or full use for approximately fifteen years. I am a child of the age of W. I am also a historian of the moving image or at least that is what I have been studying. I therefore appreciate the fortunate nature of being a W child. I have never had to fear abuse, bullying, mugging or being ripped off. My childhood was, until recently, orderly and peaceful and very safe.
The problem with W is not with what W does but rather with what it can never do. It can never show me what life is like without it. I have never experienced life without surveillance. I don’t even know if there is something that I might want to hide. Until you remove me from W, we can never know whether or not W is causing my problems. That is all, Mr Ombudsman.
OMBUDSMAN: Thank you, Mr Stanhope. I will reserve my decision to give myself a chance to consider all the facts. But I have a few questions. Would you say that one of your reasons for exclusion is so that you can experience a desire for impulsive behaviour without the full knowledge that you will be caught or assessed?
MR STANHOPE: Not quite, Mr Ombudsman. As I said before, my only desire is to experience life without W so I can see what the cause of my mental health problems are. I have no idea how I might feel in such a position. I imagine I will conduct myself as I do now.
OMBUDSMAN: Can you promise or guarantee that you might not do something problematic?
MR STANHOPE: I believe I am a moral and law abiding individual. I have no reason to think I would break the law. I would like to stress that there are many examples of impulsive behaviour, such as stuffing one’s mouth full of chocolate, which are not illegal and at worst are unhealthy.
OMBUDSMAN: That is understood and there is nothing stopping you from conducting such behaviour now.
MR STANHOPE: Mr Ombudsman, if you don’t mind me saying, I think you are disregarding reality.
OMBUDSMAN: The government has put in regulations to limit mobbing, and social embarrassment is explicitly not a reason for exclusion from the IDSS. Do you have any reason to suspect that you might not conduct yourself appropriately if cut out of the IDSS?
MR STANHOPE: No.
OMBUDSMAN: Our understanding of your mental health problems is largely based on your own accounts of what has been going on inside your head. I note that this sets you apart from Mr Rachmanov, who so vividly displayed his illness. How are we to know that you have not concocted this story to escape from your social duties?
MR STANHOPE: You would have to trust me.
OMBUDSMAN: Yes, quite. Finally, do you appreciate that even if you are excluded from W, you will in any case be subject to others’ use of W so that you will only be truly excluded when alone.
MR STANHOPE: That is understood.
OMBUDSMAN: That is all then, Mr Stanhope. We will review your comments, your record on the IDSS and come back to you as soon as possible with a response, but at the latest within three months. You will of course have the option to appeal if you have any concerns with the process.
Hearing adjourned
Neutral citation [2064] ST 17
Case No: 62SO20630003
Smith House
65 Fleet Street
London
EC4Y 1HS
17 July 2064
BEFORE
Ombudsman Terence Smye
REGARDING
Sebastian Stanhope’s application to be removed from the International Democratic Surveillance System
Heard in Smith House on 25 June 2064
SUMMARY OF DECISION
1.This is an application by Sebastian Stanhope for his exclusion from the International Democratic Surveillance System (IDSS) under section 3 of the IDSS Act 2028.
2.Section 3 allows exclusion from the IDSS if the “individual has good reason to be excluded and such exclusion is, on balance, proportionate with the aims of a democratic society. For the benefit of any doubt, a good reason cannot be for national security or to protect against personal embarrassment.”
3.Mr Stanhope has argued for his exclusion on the basis that his presence on the IDSS will lead to him becoming mental unwell.
4.In Rachmanov vs. The Democratic Surveillance Ombudsperson,40 the Court found that mental illness could constitute a good reason for exclusion.
5.However, Mr Stanhope’s situation can be distinguished from that of Mr Rachmanov. Mr Rachmanov was already seriously unwell and there was tangible evidence that the IDSS was exacerbating his paranoid schizophrenia. Mr Stanhope is, in contrast, currently mentally well and his testimony is the only evidence that the IDSS is causing him harm.
6.If this office allow
ed Mr Stanhope to be excluded, it could expect a number of similar applications from individuals claiming the IDSS is affecting their mental health. The Ombudsperson would not be able to determine which of these claims was real or false. It would undermine the effectiveness of the IDSS and consequently threaten the security and democratic nature of our society. On balance, we have to accept a certain amount of deterioration in the mental health of our society to ensure it remains a safe, honest and democratic one.
7.I must therefore reject Mr Stanhope’s application for exclusion under section 3.
Application dismissed
22B Lear Road, 29 February 2080
I didn’t go to find Sebastian when I left the prison. I missed him. Of course I missed him. I loved him. But it was years since I had last spoken to him. He had left England soon after his application to be removed from W had failed. I was proud of him. He was helping people. But I felt he could have been more. I worried about him. Was he living up to his potential? He still had time to have a family. But children and relationships are passé. Who would have guessed that 2 million years of human evolutionary trends would have become passé? Not that he was mindlessly following the fashion – he could have done with a touch of mindlessness – he had always been righteously opposed to children. When a friend of ours fell pregnant, I remember him saying, “How can people be reproducing?”
“It’s not for us to judge,” Clara said.
“But there are children starving.”
“We had you.”
